Re: In Praise of Taking Risks with Artistry (was conundrum, re: bjork's new CD)

[Travis Hartnett <tiktok@sprintmail.com>]

At a record store listening booth, I listened to the first track and 
the first minute or so of the next five, and there was nothing grabbing 
me, and it sounded pretty Bjork.   Like a lot of "music with an unusual 
concept in it's production", I found the idea more compelling than the 
actual results.  At this point she's in my bin marked "artists who have 
exhausted my benefit of the doubt owing to my finite amounts of time 
and money", along with Radiohead, Merzbow, live Phish recordings, John 
Tesh, the films of Kevin Smith, Skrewdriver, all of the post-'91 output 
of Philip Glass, and many others.  So, I'm unlikely to spend actual 
money and time to confirm what several previous years of Bjork exposure 
have revealed: a lack of compatibility between her musical art and my 
powers of appreciation.

And besides, my point is not to confirm or deny the perceived worth of 
any particular piece of art, but rather to emphasize that it's 
important to be sure that one isn't mistaking "novel" for "good".  A 
recording of someone playing piano with just their nose, for instance, 
isn't really all that interesting to listen to...twice, regardless of 
the novel approach, or the difficulty the performer faced in working in 
such a manner..  And maybe not even once if you don't know the back 
story.  Remember Bang On A Can's version of "Music For Airports"?

So, I'm glad you enjoy the new Bjork, but I'm not just knee-jerking my 
rejection of it.

TravisH


On Sep 6, 2004, at 4:11 PM, 
Loopers-Delight-d-request@loopers-delight.com wrote:

> I guess she had to finance the new album. Have you even heard it?
> The bulk of it is not pop music, I think it's amazing.